Thursday, June 29, 2017

Gerald Fitzgerald was the
powerful 9th Lord of Kildare, located in The Pale of Ireland. He had a rocky
relationship with King Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547), and was sometimes in the
English king’s good graces, but at other times under suspicion or even under
arrest. In 1534, Henry VIII ordered Gerald to report to London, where he would
answer further questions about his loyalty. Gerald deputized his son, Thomas
Fitzgerald, as the acting Earl of Kildare, then ventured to London to meet the
king’s summons. Upon Gerald’s arrival in the capital, Henry VIII must not have
been impressed with what he heard, for Lord Fitzgerald was imprisoned in the
Tower of London.

When word reached back to
Ireland that Gerald Fitzgerald had been imprisoned, many Irishmen expected the
worst—after all, Henry VIII remains notorious for his many executions. Of the
many concerned Irishmen, Gerald’s son, Thomas, was the most outraged.

After hearing about the
imprisonment of his father, Thomas Fitzgerald declared war on Henry VIII. He
managed to rally a major rebellion under his leadership, profiting from the
anti-Protestant sentiment among the Catholic Irish. Thomas Fitzgerald hoped that
the Catholic nature of his rebellion would entice the Scots and the Spanish to
aid in his revolt, but foreign help never came. Nevertheless, Thomas was able
to deliver considerable damage with his own resources.

Thomas Fitzgerald’s rebellion
quickly laid siege to the major city of Dublin, which was the heart of English
authority in Ireland. They succeeded in taking parts of the city, and even
managed to kill the archbishop of Dublin, John Alen, but the city was never
entirely occupied.

In October, 1534, English
reinforcements arrived under William Skeffington to crush the rebellion. Once
Skeffington’s men landed and gained a foothold, the rebellion was defeated with
ease. By March of 1535, the rebels were pushed out of Dublin and slowly pressed
back into the Fitzgerald territory of Kildare. Thomas Fitzgerald and his rebels
made a final stand at Maynooth Castle, but by August, 1535, they were forced to
surrender.

With the end of the
rebellion, Fitzgerald power in Ireland virtually came to an end. Gerald
Fitzgerald died of ill health in 1534, while he was imprisoned in the Tower of
London. His son, Thomas Fitzgerald, despite being given a promise of mercy, was
executed (along with five of his uncles) after the rebellion was crushed. After
the mass execution of the Fitzgerald men, the leadership of the family passed
to a young boy, also named Gerald Fitzgerald (11th Earl of Kildare), who was
smuggled out of Ireland. He managed to stay alive until Queen Mary I restored
him to power after the death of King Henry VIII.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

Ireland:
A Short History (Third Edition) by Joseph Coohill. London: Oneworld Publications,
2008.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The inquisitors that hunted
and judged accused witches could often be unhealthily arrogant and vain when
assessing their own power. This was very evident in the The Malleus Maleficarum, which was, perhaps, the most influential
text of the witch-hunting era. In the book, Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger
outlined the abilities of witches, demons and monsters, and then elaborated on
how supernatural attacks could be deterred or cured. Yet, interestingly, Kramer
and Sprenger also addressed some of the God-given holy powers of the
inquisitors. In hindsight, these inquisitorial powers seem suspiciously
self-serving.

The first blanket covering of
protection that the inquisitors laid out for themselves was the idea that those
people appointed by the church to administer justice in religious courts were
innately immune to witchcraft. Speaking of witches, The Malleus Maleficarum stated, “it is said that they cannot injure
Inquisitors and other officials, because they dispense public justice. Many
examples could be adduced to prove this, but time does not permit it” (The Malleus Maleficarum, Part I,
Question 18). Similarly, the inquisitors found that a member of public justice
could virtually never be tempted or swayed by demons into practicing dark magic,
making themselves all but immune to accusations of witchcraft.

Heinrich Kramer and James
Sprenger recorded another really peculiar power of the inquisitor—they wrote
that inquisitors had the ability to completely nullify a witch’s power.
Therefore, if an accused witch could not produce any magic after she was
apprehended, this predicament merely occurred because the holy abilities of the
inquisitors were blocking her power. The
Maleus Maleficarum stated, “the aforesaid Doctor affirms that witches have
borne witness that it is a fact of their own experience that, merely because
they have been taken by officials of public justice, they have immediately lost
all their power of witchcraft” (Part II, Question 1). Kramer and Sprenger go on
to quote another inquisitor named Peter, who calmed his worried men before
arresting an accused male witch with these words: “You may safely arrest the
wretch, for when he is touched by the hand of public justice he will lose all
the power of his iniquity” (Part I, Question 1).

This idea of magic nullifying
powers held by the inquisitors was especially potent when mixed with an ability
The Malleus Maleficarum attributed to
the most elite and powerful witches. Apparently, some inquisitors believed the
most adept witches could force lesser witches to keep silent under torture.
Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger wrote, “they can affect Judges and Magistrates
so that they cannot hurt them; they can cause themselves and others to keep
silence under torture” (The Malleus
Maleficarum, Part II, Question I, Chapter 2).

With these short religious
theories, the inquisitors proposed that they, themselves, were immune to
witchcraft. Their self-proclaimed immunity was so powerful that it eradicated
the ability of witches to perform their craft. If that was not enough, powerful
witches, themselves, could supposedly force their underlings into silence, even
during torture. As a result, even when the unfortunate souls who confessed to
witchcraft under torture could not demonstrate any supernatural ability,
inquisitors could explain the absence of magic by citing the nullifying effect
of their public office. If an accused witch claimed innocence, the inquisitors
could propose that another witch was keeping their prisoner from confessing. The
fate of the accused rested with the temperament of their judge, and the degree
to which the inquisitors believed in, or disregarded, ideas such as the ones
listed above.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Source

The
Malleus Maleficarum by
Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, translated by Montague Summers. New York:
Dover Publications, 1971.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Numerous ancient sources,
such as Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Justin, Polyaenus, Pliny and Strabo
commented on the multiple marriages of Alexander the Great. Around 327 BCE,
Alexander married a teenager named Roxane (also spelled Roxana). She was the
daughter of Oxyartes, a vassal of Persia who ruled from a formidable fortress
known as Sogdian Rock. Years later, in 324 BCE, Alexander married Stateira, the
eldest daughter of the deceased Persian Great King, Darius III. At the same
time, he also married Parysatis, the daughter of Darius’ predecessor,
Artaxerxes. Despite these three women being the only known legitimate wives of
Alexander the Great, none of them bore Alexander his first-born son,
Heracles. No, the mother of Heracles was a woman named Barsine, Alexander’s
mistress who accompanied the King of Macedonia during most of his military
campaign.

Barsine was born from a union between a Greek
woman and a Persian satrap named Artabazus II. Although she was technically
Persian, Barsine was well versed in the Greek language and culture. After
participating in a revolt, Artabazus was driven into exile, where he and his
family (including Barsine) found sanctuary in the court of Philip II, in
Macedonia. It is entirely likely that Barsine and Alexander knew each other
well as children.

Nevertheless, Barsine
returned to the Persian Empire, where she was soon married to her uncle, then
widowed, and then married again to Memnon of Rhodes, who served as the main
commander of the Greek mercenaries serving in the Persian army. Memnon,
however, also met an early death when he died of illness during his siege of Mytilene,
leaving Barsine, once again, a widow.

Alexander the Great
unwittingly assured a reunion between himself and his childhood friend in 333
BCE when he sent his general, Parmenion, to seize the treasury located in the
city of Damascus. When Parmenion arrived at the city with a detachment of
soldiers, he found a large mass of Persians gathering outside the city in
preparation to flee further into the interior of the Persian Empire. The
fleeing citizens of Damascus were so numerous that Parmenion initially believed
an army had sallied out of the city to face him in battle. Parmenion immediately
arrayed his men for a fight, but his opponents did not behave as expected—the
citizens of Damascus took one look at Parmenion’s troops and scattered in fear.
Parmenion immediately gave chase and rounded up his newfound prisoners. When
Parmenion returned to Alexander the Great, he brought with him hundreds of tons
in gold and silver, as well as a host of prisoners. Among those captured from
Damascus was Barsine.

Alexander the Great welcomed
his childhood acquaintance warmly when he learned of her capture. There is no
clear account of how their relationship sparked to life, but most ancient sources
agreed that Alexander and Barsine became enthralled in a passionate affair
quickly after Parmenion secured Damascus in 333 BCE. Sources such as Plutarch
reported that Barsine remained an important person in the life of Alexander the
Great until as late as 324 BCE, when she was present at the marriages between
the Macedonian king and his new royal Persian wives, Sateira and Parysatis, at
the mass wedding in Susa.

As the Persian Empire
collapsed, fruit soon formed from the affair between Alexander and Barsine. Diodorus
wrote that a son was born to the pair in 327 BCE, but Justin suggested that the
birth occurred much later, in 324 BCE. Precision of dating aside, Barsine gave
birth to the first known son of Alexander the Great. In a calculated, prideful
move, Alexander the Great named his first-born son, Heracles. It was an unsubtle
reference to his self-proclaimed divine lineage. After all, through his mother,
Alexander supposedly traced his family back to Achilles and the nymph, Thetis.
From his father’s side, Alexander claimed familial ties to the mythological
Heracles and Zeus. As far as historians know, Alexander and Barsine were the
first Hellenistic nobles bold enough to name their son ‘Heracles’—the name
would become more fashionable after the death of Alexander.

Heracles, however, was an
illegitimate child and his future in his father’s empire would always be
uncertain, especially after Alexander’s first wife, Roxane, gave birth to a son
named Alexander IV in the year of Alexander’s death. Yet, neither boy would live
to inherit power from their father. Upon the death of Alexander the Great in
323 BCE, Heracles and Alexander the IV were largely pushed aside and used as
pawns by powerful Macedonian generals. Both of Alexander the Great’s sons met suspicious
or violent ends before the turn of the century.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon &
Schuster Paperbacks, 2011.

Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient
Life by Thomas R. Martin and
Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Monday, June 26, 2017

When King Auletes of Egypt
died in 51 BCE, the leadership of the kingdom was left to his two children,
Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII. The two were meant to be co-rulers of Egypt as an
incestuous married couple, yet a divide quickly formed between the siblings.
Despite their young ages (Cleopatra was a teenager and her brother was even
younger than she), the two children had far different visions for Egypt.
Ptolemy, heavily influenced by powerful advisors, supported the traditional
style of Ptolemaic rule. Cleopatra, however, strove to bridge the widening
divide between the Ptolemaic government and the Egyptian people. She learned
the Egyptian language, as well as Hebrew and Ethiopian, and participated in the
religious ceremonies of Egypt. Cleopatra’s ambition and vision was incompatible
with the methods used by Ptolemy and his advisors. Soon, civil war erupted to
decide which sibling would rule Egypt.

Julius Caesar threw himself
into the Egyptian conflict when, in 48 BCE, he arrived at Alexandria in pursuit
of his Roman rival, Pompey the Great. At that time, King Ptolemy XIII’s
supporters had control of Alexandria and the twenty-one year old Cleopatra had
been forced to abandon the city. When Pompey arrived in Egypt, the supporters
of Ptolemy saw a chance to gain support from Julius Caesar—they had Pompey
assassinated and presented the man’s head to Caesar when he arrived in
Alexandria. The ploy turned out to be a mistake. Caesar was irritated and
disgusted by the actions of the Egyptian government. Instead of showing gratitude
for the killing of Pompey, Julius Caesar demanded payment of ten million
denarii owed to Rome by the previous Egyptian king, Auletes. Then, to the
horror of many Egyptians, he occupied Alexandria with his battle-hardened Roman
soldiers.

Caesar was determined to end
the civil war in Egypt before returning to his struggles in Rome. From his
fortified position in the royal palace of Alexandria, Julius Caesar declared
himself to be the guarantor of the late King Auletes’ final wishes. Caesar then
called for Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra to meet with him and discuss the future
of Egypt. Ptolemy was sent to Julius Caesar, even though the advisors assented
only grudgingly. Cleopatra, however, was still outside the city, denied access
to Alexandria by hostile soldiers and assassins who supported her brother.
Nevertheless, the young Queen of Egypt was determined to attend that meeting
with Julius Caesar.

Plutarch gave one of the more
vivid accounts about how Cleopatra was smuggled into Alexandria. He wrote that
she and an attendant named Apollodorus were ferried into the royal quarter of
Alexandria in a small boat, easily hidden among the merchant ships busily trading
in the city. Before they departed the docks in the royal quarter, Cleopatra either
was rolled up inside a rug or hid herself in a laundry bag and had her
assistant, Apollodorus, carry her into the royal palace. Reportedly,
Apollodorus was not stopped or searched in the palace, for he apparently
delivered Cleopatra straight to Julius Caesar, opening the laundry bag or
unrolling the rug before the dicatator’s very eyes.

With the meeting of Cleopatra
and Julius Caesar, one of the world’s most famous love affairs began. With
Caesar’s backing, Cleopatra was able to defeat her rivals and usurp what
remained of her younger brother’s power, making her the undisputed Queen of
Egypt.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

(Crazy Horse Model (cropped) for a monument under construction in the
Black Hills of South Dakota, [Public Domain] via goodfreephotots.com)

Crazy Horse, or Tashunka
Witko, was born in the early 1840s (perhaps, 1840-1842), during the height of
Lakota Sioux power. He was introduced to warfare against the United States at
an early age. In 1854, the Grattan Massacre occurred, where U. S. soldiers, led
by Lieutenant John Grattan, killed a Sioux chief named Conquering Bear. As a
consequence, the soldiers were then killed in return by the dead chief’s enraged
warriors. The Grattan Massacre became the primary spark that began the long
wars between the Sioux people and the United States military.

Crazy Horse had a long and
respectable military carrier. The earliest known major fight in which he was
involved occurred along the Oregon Trail in 1865. A year later, Crazy Horse won
an impressive victory against the forces of Captain William J. Fetterman in
what would come to be known as the Fetterman Massacre. Later, Crazy Horse
teamed up with Sitting Bull in 1876 to fight in the battles at Rosebud Creek
and Little Bighorn. After the utter destruction of Lt. Colonel George Armstrong
Custer’s forces at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the United States
escalated its campaign against the hostile Native American coalition. With U.S.
pressure rising, many Sioux dissidents chose to flee to Canada rather than
continue fighting a losing battle.

On May 6, 1877, Crazy Horse
finally surrendered himself to United States authorities in Fort Robinson,
Nebraska. There, he was confined until the United States assigned him to a
reservation. Nevertheless, Crazy Horse would not live long enough to be
resettled.

Mystery surrounds the death
of Crazy Horse. By September 1877, rumors were beginning to spread that Crazy
Horse was planning another great revolt against the United States. Though these
rumors are now considered unfounded, the soldiers of Fort Robinson took the
gossip very seriously. On September 5, 1877, Crazy Horse was arrested and
apparently told that he was simply being brought to speak to the commanding
officer of the fort. Yet, instead of taking Crazy Horse to the commanding
officer, the soldiers began pulling him toward a nearby guardhouse. When Crazy
Horse realized he was about to be locked away in a prison cell, he began to
struggle against his captors—possibly with a knife. The soldiers, however,
quickly overpowered the agitated Sioux chief and the brawl turned deadly. The
soldiers stabbed Crazy Horse to death with their bayonets.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

Black
Elk Speaks,
narrated by Black Elk and recorded by John G. Neihardt. Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press, 2014.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

(Donkey and the Pyramids of Giza, both [Public Domain] via Pixabay and
goodfreephotos.com)

In 1996, fate found an agent
in an unnamed donkey belonging to the antiquities security patrol of the Temple
of Alexander, in the Bahariya Oasis, southwest of Cairo, Egypt. Reports of what
happened vary slightly, but the results all end the same—with one of the
greatest discoveries of modern Egyptology. Two stories can be found about the
donkey and its important accomplishment. In one account, the donkey got loose
from its handler and was later found staring at a hole in the ground. The other
version claims that the security patrol and the donkey were doing their rounds,
when the beast’s leg fell into a hole. Either way, the donkey found a sprawling
complex of tombs containing an unknown amount of wall paintings and mummies.

Renowned Egyptologist, Dr.
Zahi Hawass, took over the excavation and study of the site in 1996. The tomb
complex is now known as The Valley of the Golden Mummies and contains as many
as 10,000 possible mummies. Already, around 250 mummies have been found. More
importantly, the tombs, and the mummies and paintings within them, date to the
Greco-Roman Period (332 BCE-395 CE), giving valuable insight into how the Greek
and Roman cultures interacted with, or were absorbed by, the potent and durable
Egyptian culture.

As the name “Valley of the
Golden Mummies” suggests, many of the mummies found in the Bahariya Oasis tombs
were covered with gold. Interestingly, many non-Egyptian mummies have been found
in the tombs. These Greco-Roman elites seemed to have taken a liking to
Egyptian burial traditions, for their remains were mummified and laid to rest
with golden burial masks. Still, old customs were hard to relinquish—many of
the Greco-Roman mummies had coins on their person with which to pay the
ferryman of dead souls, Charon, for passage into the underworld.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

Egypt’s Ten Greatest Discoveries. Written by Dr. Zahi Hawass and produced by
Discovery. Documentary, 2008.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Socialism was a family affair
for the Mussolini family. In 1883, Benito Mussolini was born in Forlí, Italy,
to a blacksmith named Alessandro and a Catholic schoolteacher named Rosa. Besides
being a blacksmith, Alessandro Mussolini was also a vocal socialist who wrote
about his beliefs in journals and debated his political philosophy in nearby
taverns.

In his childhood and early
adult life, Benito Mussolini shared his father’s socialist ardor. Mussolini’s
first major choice for a career path was in the field of education. He obtained
a teaching certificate in 1901, but soon realized that his calling was not that
of a teacher. In 1902, he abandoned his teaching job and set off for
Switzerland. One of his few possessions on the journey was, reportedly, a
medallion decorated with the engraved visage of Karl Marx.

Benito Mussolini made a name
for himself as an advocate of socialism while he was in Switzerland. In
particular, observers began to notice the young man’s abilities in speaking,
writing and propaganda. Mussolini helped trade unions with publicity and
propaganda on multiple occasions.

Mussolini’s actions in
Switzerland became so disruptive that the Swiss authorities eventually threw
him out of the country. He returned to Italy in 1904, where he continued his
writing, speaking and propaganda services. Benito Mussolini founded multiple
socialist newspapers, including Popolo
d’Italia with the subtitle of “Socialist Daily” and La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle). His work with these
newspapers caught the attention of Italy’s official socialist newspaper, Avanti (Forward), and he was soon hired
on as the paper’s editor. During his youth and early adulthood, Benito
Mussolini was arrested as a consequence of his socialist beliefs at least five
times.

The schism between Benito
Mussolini and the socialist movement only came about in 1915, when Italy was
debating how it should react to World War One. The socialist movement in Italy,
for the most part, rejected the war. Benito Mussolini, however, supported
joining the Allied side of WWI, thinking war would act as a catalyst, allowing
Italy to change and expand, both geographically and socially. As a result of
his pro-war beliefs, Mussolini resigned from his position at Avanti, left (or was expelled from) the
socialist movement and joined the Italian armed forces.

It was only in 1919, after his
experiences in WWI, that Mussolini rallied his fascist movement and
transitioned from being a radical socialist to a staunch counter-revolutionary
militant. After swinging from one extreme of the political spectrum to the
other, Benito Mussolini adapted his oratory, writing and propaganda skills to
bolster his new fascist movement. With a militia of around 30,000 men in black
shirts, Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922 and convinced the Italian government
to make him Prime Minister. In only a few short years, he would become the
fascist dictator of Italy.